wand

The Nouns community has already done an incredible job at proliferating Nouns through various means without a formal legal entity. This proposal is an unnecessary risk and expenditure that is difficult to justify at this time. I believe it's important for the DAO to experiment and see how far it can go before converting to a formal structure, but this is not the time to do so. Instead, I would suggest building out the existing mechanisms of governance and community management in a way that further reduces reliance on legal frameworks.

It seems like the DAO could undertake these legal steps themselves without relying on the Foundation. The Foundation's work can be greatly appreciated but it should be left to the DAO and not another organization.

This proposal feels like a lot of "pork" was added to the core benefit of converting the DAO to DUNA. The DAO can address tax liabilities and DUNA operations in a separate proposal, without the extra cost.

I really want Nouns to be legit, but I don't think this proposal is the right way to do it. There's no real plan for governance post DUNA conversion, and we need to do this thoughtfully and not make hasty decisions. I believe the DAO needs to do some more brainstorming and discussions before taking this step. I think we need to see a more concrete proposal that outlines clear governance and administrative structures, and that focuses on how a DUNA can enhance the Nouns ecosystem, before moving forward. Also, given the uncertainty around historical liabilities, we must proceed carefully and prioritize understanding the full impact on the DAO.

I'm not entirely sold on DUNA, and I think the proposal could benefit from exploring the broader legal landscape and alternative jurisdictions too.

While the proposal accurately outlines the benefits of transitioning to a DUNA, it is a big decision and I would prefer to see the DAO explore this topic with a smaller initial investment, followed by additional proposals. I also prefer to see a more thorough breakdown of how the DAO would operate after the transition to a DUNA.

While the proposal is well-written, the request for funds seems high. Also, the proposal could be more clear about the specific responsibilities of the administrator. A detailed description about the proposed veto would also strengthen the proposal.

We are in favor of governance innovation and recognize the need to address legal and tax implications. However, this proposal lacks clarity on the governance structure of the DUNA and how it will be implemented. This proposal should be revisited after an open and public discussion on how the DUNA will be governed and how the administrator will be selected, along with a comprehensive explanation of the anticipated impact to the current voting process.

I'm unsure that this structure is the right path forward for Nouns. It's important that the DAO remain as decentralized as possible and make sure that governance remains in the hands of the community rather than a formal legal entity, especially given the cost and lack of direct impact this proposal could have.

This prop does not highlight a specific, tangible way that the DUNA structure will benefit the Nouns ecosystem. Additionally, the prop is missing a clear articulation of what happens next once the DUNA is established (e.g. how the administrator is appointed and what roles the DAO will take in the new structure).

I see a lot of benefits with converting to a DUNA structure. However, the proposal's scope is too broad and complex. The Foundation could focus on a smaller subset of the work and bring that to the DAO for a vote. For example, it could start by focusing on winding down the current Cayman Foundation.

I don’t think we should convert to a DUNA right now. The Foundation has done good work. I want to wait and see how other DAOs utilize this structure and then we can consider if it’s a good fit for Nouns. It’s important to explore and understand the implications of such a drastic change before making this commitment.

I've seen the Nouns DAO make progress towards becoming a more formalized legal structure. This proposal is a continuation of that evolution, and feels like the right thing to do.

I see the need for DUNA but feel that the implementation details are not clear and not communicated as clearly as they could be. The proposal could be improved by highlighting the potential benefits to the community.

The proposal lacks a concrete roadmap to how governance will be implemented once the DUNA is established. The proposal could be improved by outlining a more detailed plan for the governance structure within the DUNA, including specifics on how veto will be implemented, the administrator’s role, and the process for DAO governance integration.

It would be helpful to have a more specific breakdown of the $726,000 budget. I would like to see the costs of each firm/advisor itemized and the reasoning for using the 'leading firms' in the space explained.

The proposal is too ambitious and complex. To simplify, I would suggest a smaller scope with a more limited set of activities. The community needs to be fully onboard for this to succeed, and I think that should be a main focus. I would like to see a detailed plan with clear milestones and a focus on what the DUNA would be responsible for during the first year.

I think the proposed DUNA structure could be improved with a more detailed roadmap for integrating it with Nouns governance processes. For example, how will it affect the current vote system, and what are the long-term plans for integrating the DUNA structure with other aspects of the DAO? I believe this proposal would benefit from a more thorough explanation of the administrator's role and how their authority will be aligned with the DAO's existing governance mechanisms.

I'm not convinced this is the right move for the Nouns DAO at this time. It would be more constructive to focus on developing and deploying new tools and onchain infrastructure rather than converting to a DUNA. In addition, the DAO’s current setup, while imperfect, has already proven its ability to scale and attract a diverse group of contributors, which this move potentially jeopardizes. Instead of focusing on a single jurisdiction, the Nouns DAO should remain a global, decentralized force.

This proposal does not fully explore the options for a structure that provides the best outcome for the DAO. I’m not convinced the DUNA structure will provide a meaningful long-term benefit. A more robust exploration of possible solutions and an outline of the benefits, potential impacts, and how the DAO will measure success would have been helpful.

I'm unsure if the proposed legal changes would be beneficial and feel that there needs to be a more thorough explanation about the legal implications and what the proposed changes mean for community members.

I believe we need a more thorough roadmap to DUNA, and more clear guidance on the timeline, for example, on when we can expect the 501(c)(7) application. Also, I’d like to see a more detailed breakdown of the costs for various services (tax, legal, etc) with the possibility of the DAO considering alternatives or seeking bids from more than one firm. This way, we can better assess if this budget is truly needed, and see if the chosen firms are indeed offering the best value to Nouns. I do agree, though, that this DUNA is a positive step towards the future of Nouns.

While I am excited about the goals of this proposal, I find it difficult to understand how the DUNA structure will integrate with the current framework of the DAO. The information presented does not provide a clear enough picture of how the transition to this new legal structure would be executed and the impacts of this change on ongoing operations and governance. In order to feel more comfortable supporting this, the proposal would need to clearly outline the specifics of the DUNA transition, along with the impact on the existing Nouns Foundation and its assets. It would also be beneficial to have a more in-depth explanation of the proposed governance structure, as well as the process for electing and empowering a DUNA administrator.

The proposal mentions that the team is open to community input, but lacks a detailed plan on how to collect and integrate that feedback. Including a clear roadmap for community engagement would improve the proposal.

I believe that the proposal's current legal structure could cause complications. It would be beneficial for the Nouns DAO to consider alternative structures or jurisdictions.

I appreciate the hard work that went into this proposal, but I believe the proposal is not clear enough on how the DUNA will be managed and how the Nouns community will be involved. It is important for the proposal to outline this in more detail, especially as the proposal is asking for a significant amount of funding from the DAO.

While the proposal outlines compelling reasons for the conversion to a DUNA, I am hesitant to support a proposal that places so much financial burden on Nouns DAO given the uncertainties inherent in this project, especially considering that the DAO doesn't automatically become a DUNA with the passing of this proposal. It's essential that NounsDAO carefully assesses the potential risks and benefits before committing such significant funds, which could be used to support other projects with a higher probability of success.

I am not yet convinced that converting to a DUNA in Wyoming would be beneficial for Nouns. For example, while I understand the tax benefits, it seems difficult to see how this would make Nouns more attractive to builders or partners.

Though I'm a fan of the Nouns Foundation and think it's important to address the legal concerns presented, I think this proposal lacks a clear explanation of the benefits for Nouns. Further, it's worth considering if we can leverage the existing legal structure to accomplish a similar outcome.

Too much info and detail and missing aspects of governance makes me unsure of the DUNA structure and the implementation plan for the next year.

This proposal is very well thought out and thoroughly researched but it's complex and I think the DAO could benefit from a shorter, more incremental transition plan, starting with the US legal and tax setup. Then a separate proposal to incorporate in Wyoming could be proposed once a strong foundation has been built.

I think this proposal is incredibly ambitious and interesting, but I don't think Nouns should be putting all of its eggs into one basket with the DUNA.

This proposal represents a significant change for the Nouns ecosystem. I believe the proposal could benefit from more community-driven engagement through rounds.wtf or other open forums to help better develop the proposed DUNA governance structure.

This proposal outlines a complicated structure and a significant financial burden for the DAO. It does not clearly explain how the DUNA would operate onchain or address community concerns about the potential for abuse of the administrator role. While the intent to create a legal structure for the DAO is commendable, a clearer path with more transparency would better serve the community.

A DAO structure shift should be a priority for Nouns, but the proposal lacks necessary community engagement. This proposal should include a robust roadmap and a well-defined timeline, alongside a forum where all parties can provide feedback and address concerns.

I believe this is a big step for Nouns, and while I respect the effort of the Foundation, this proposal is too big and too costly. I’d like to see smaller proposals that build up to this conversion, such as separate proposals for legal, accounting, and administrator.

This proposal has been extensively researched by a team of advisors and I appreciate the work they’ve done, but I do think it is worth reconsidering if the best course of action is to move to a DUNA right now. It is true that there are some risks associated with the current legal structure, but converting to a DUNA would have its own unique set of constraints, and it is possible that there are alternative paths forward that don’t involve such a drastic structural shift. I would suggest that this be a longer term conversation, with a Prop House round to explore these alternative paths. Also, in the section "Are there historical liabilities associated with the DAO” the proposal should provide a clear accounting of all historical liabilities, along with a plan for how they would be addressed, in order to convince the DAO that converting is the best path forward.

I love the spirit of this proposal and agree that a legal structure consistent with the DAO is important. The proposal does not provide any specifics about the administrator however, which makes it difficult to evaluate. It also relies heavily on external parties for execution, and does not provide any concrete plan for how the DAO will participate in the decision-making process. I suggest the proposal be revised to include a plan for the DAO to participate in the administration selection process. Also providing a plan for how the DAO will be involved in the selection of the legal and tax advisors would be helpful.

This proposal is a huge shift for Nouns, and while I agree with the overall goal, I think we need to do more due diligence. There's a lot of legal nuance that hasn't been fully explored and I think we should have a more robust approach towards transparency and communication with the community. More detailed budget breakdowns and a clear roadmap would have been helpful to the DAO.

I appreciate the hard work and dedication from all of the participants in this proposal. This is a complex situation with important considerations and I believe the DAO needs more time to thoroughly understand it before making such a significant decision. I would like to see this proposal resubmitted with the option for a lower budget for a pilot program.

I don’t believe that there is enough value offered here for the price. I think there are a lot of great ideas in this proposal though. I would be more supportive if the proposal focused on specific aspects of the DUNA like administration and oversight.

Nouns is the most valuable NFT project because it’s built on public goods and the community. Establishing a DUNA structure will shift this focus, and could lead to a decline in Nouns’s community.

This is a massive and complex undertaking. A proposal of this kind requires detailed and thorough documentation of the governance structure and the DUNA's operations, as well as a roadmap for the transition, including details of potential legal and financial risks. We should be wary of proposals that are this large.

While the proposal is clearly a thoughtful and well researched step to take in order to address concerns about legal liability, I believe the process is lacking in overall community governance involvement and I am uncomfortable with the lack of onchain transparency. Additionally, I'm concerned that the proposal is missing a key element: A plan to ensure that the DUNA serves the Nouns community.

I'm hesitant to vote yes here. This is a huge, unprecedented change that requires a lot of legal due diligence to ensure it's well thought out. I think the proposed budget is fair but the time frame for implementation is too short. This should be broken up into smaller, incremental proposals to make sure we're moving in the right direction.

The proposal is very complex and may be difficult for the average Noun holder to fully understand. It would benefit the DAO by providing a more concise overview of the transition and outlining a clear action plan for the next steps to be taken post-DUNA.

I am not a lawyer or accountant, but even I can see that this proposal is overly complex, and could create more problems than it solves.

The proposal is great and I understand the necessity for this but I think the DUNA conversion can be done with less cost and without asking for a huge sum of money from the treasury. For example, perhaps the budget for the DUNA conversion could be split into a couple of different proposals.

The proposal outlines a thoughtful and important plan for converting Nouns to a DUNA but it's unclear how the DUNA's administrator will be authorized and if this administrator will function in a truly decentralized manner. The proposal doesn't adequately address this.

I love the work done on this proposal, but I believe that it needs a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be allocated.